Developing a Scale to Measure Reader Self- Perception for ... · Developing a Scale to Measure Reader Self-Perception for EFL Students ... reading and writing in English are correlated

PASAA

Volume 50

July - December 2015

Developing a Scale to Measure Reader Self-

Perception for EFL Students

Dumrong Adunyarittigun

Thammasat University

Abstract

The development of a scale for measuring self-

perception for readers of English as a foreign language

is discussed in this paper. The scale was developed

from the four dimensions of self-efficacy theory

proposed by Bandura (1977a): progress, observational

comparison, social feedback and physiological states.

A 36 item scale was developed to measure the four

dimensions. Five hundred and fourteen Thai EFL

students at the college level completed the scale.

Factor analyses and item-total correlations indicated

that most of the items best defined their own

constructs. Cronbach’s alpha internal reliabilities also

indicated a strong coherence of the items in measuring

their proposed dimensions. Students’ achievements in

reading and writing in English are correlated with the

scale. Regression analyses showed that the Self-

Perception Scale for Readers of English as a Foreign

Language (SPSREFL) is a significant predictor for

students’ reading achievement.

Keywords: EFL Reader Self-Perception Scale, EFL

readers, reading ability

2 | PASAA Vol. 50 July - December 2015

Self-efficacy or self-perception is defined as the individual’s

judgment of how well one can organize and implement actions in a

specific situation, which may contain ambiguous, unpredictable,

and stressful elements (Bandura,1977a). Wigfield and Karpathian

(1991) also explained self-perception as knowledge structures about

the self that organize the individuals' interpretations of their

experiences and guide their behaviors. Self-perception is

hypothesized to have an impact on the choices of activities, effort

expenditure, perseverance in the face of difficulties and expectations

of eventual success (Bandura, 1977b; Bandura & Schunk, 1981).

For instance, individuals tend to determine their ability to perform

in a given situation and then form expectations of their success or

failure. This, in turn, affects their future achievement-oriented

behavior (Weiner et al., 1971). When individuals have low assurance

that they will actually be able to accomplish a task, they tend to

become fearful and stressed, and attempt to avoid the task they

believe exceeds their coping capacity. In contrast, when individuals

judge that they are capable of handling a situation, they become

highly involved in the activities and apply strategies to help them

troubleshoot the potential problems in performing the task. Despite

the difficulties, individuals who perceive potential success are

inclined to persist in the face of setbacks and exert more effort in

order to reach the expected goals. Bandura's study on self-efficacy

(1989) indicated that learners with high perception of their own

abilities tend to try harder, continue in the face of obstacles and

succeed more often than those who have a negative self-perception

of their ability to perform a specific task.

Individuals acquire information about their own abilities from

four major sources: performance accomplishments, vicarious

experience, verbal persuasion and physiological arousal (Bandura,

1977a, 1981). First, experiencing success raises individuals' self-

efficacy; on the other hand, encountering failure lowers their self-

efficacy. Surprisingly, once individuals’ self-efficacy is enhanced,

there is a tendency to generalize a sense of success to similar

situations. When individuals believe that success is possible due to

their own abilities, they will attempt similar endeavors in similar

PASAA Vol. 50 July - December 2015 | 3

tasks and will set their goals higher (Weiner, 1972, 1979; Weiner et

al., 1971).

The second source of information that individuals use to

make self-perception judgments is the individuals’ observations of

their peers attaining success at a task. When individuals see their

peers perform and accomplish a task without adverse consequence,

this seems to convey an almost vicarious sense of positive efficacy

and the belief that they can accomplish the task as well. Ruble’s

study (1983) revealed that children obtain information about various

aspects of their own efficacy from peers. She also asserted that the

social-comparison information has an impact on the accuracy of

children’s evaluations of their competence.

Verbal persuasion is the third source of information about

individuals’ self-perception. People are led to believe that they are

capable of succeeding at a particular task by trustworthy sources

such as parents and teachers. Obtaining encouragement especially

from credible informants could help individuals to perceive their

ability and make them confident in their competence to deal with a

particular task. Finally, individuals acquire information about their

competence in performing a task from observing their physiological

states. Physiological cues such as depression, anxiety, fatigue,

sweating and trembling may signal probable failure to individuals.

Research has also shown that self-perception impacts an

individual’s overall orientation towards learning tasks which in turn

influences the learner’s choices of activities, effort expenditure,

persistence and the expectations of success. It seems reasonable to

expect that, if EFL teachers are able to obtain information about

EFL students’ self-perception as readers of English, they will be

better able to help their students gain competence, improve negative

perceptions which students might have and provide appropriate

instruction to fulfill the students’ needs. EFL teachers could

perhaps vary tasks and assignments and select appropriate

readings to promote students’ success. In addition, teachers would

be able to revise grouping techniques which encourage cooperative

learning to heighten students’ observational comparison and social

feedback perceptions (Henk & Melnick, 1992, 1995).


Self-perception influences students’ reading achievement

(Alvermann & Guthrie, 1993; Barkley, 2006; Bottomley, Henk, &

Melnick, 1997/1998; Henk, Marinak, & Melnick, 2012/2013;

Pajares & Valiante, 1997; Retelsdorf, Kӧller, Mӧller, 2014; Scott,

1996; Shell, Colvin, & Bruning, 1995). It has been established that

self-perception helps determine an individual’s overall orientation

towards the processes of reading. Self-perception positively affects

reading achievement (Morgan & Fuchs, 2007) and is also considered

to be an important predictor of reading achievement (Retelsdorf,

Kӧller, Mӧller, 2011). When students perceive themselves as able

readers, they respond to challenges during reading by applying

effective strategies, persistently coping with difficulties and

constructing meaning and remaining engaged in problem solving

(Castle, 1994; Chapman, Tunmer, & Prochnow, 2000; Guthrie &

Wigfield, 2000; Henk & Melnick, 1995; Retelsdorf, Kӧller, Mӧller,

2014; Shang, 2010). In contrast, students who doubt their own

reading competence are likely to manifest a poor self-image by

approaching a difficult reading task as a threat to be avoided rather

than a challenge (Bandura, 1989, 1995; Vacca, Vacca, & Mraz,

2013). Readers with poor self-perception may give up easily and

become frustrated during reading. In addition, these readers

generally dwell on their deficiencies and approach a reading

situation without a sense of purpose and fail to monitor their

reading activities (Johnston & Winograd, 1985). As a consequence,

they attempt to either avoid reading or procrastinate during reading

(Schunk, 1989; Vacca & Padak, 1990; Vacca, Vacca, & Mraz, 2013).

Needless to say, self-perception is important to reading effort and

achievement.

Self-image contributes to students' ability to read. Deeds

(1981) and Chiu and Klassen (2009) emphasized that reading

teachers must firmly believe in the important role that self-

perception plays in the processes of learning to read if they are to

promote students’ reading success. Aside from the critical role in a

learner’s overall reading development, self-perception also plays an

important role in an individual’s effort to learn to read in a foreign

language (Cohen & Norst, 1989). Cohen and Norst (1989) proposed


that individuals who have low perception of their competence in

performing foreign language reading tasks are very unlikely to have

effective control of their linguistic ability. Thus, the concept of self-

perception is strongly linked to the amount of effort individuals use

to perform a task and achieve their goals (Bandura, 1989).

In addition to the influence self-perception has on reading in

a first language, self-perception is also hypothesized to influence the

ability to read in a foreign language as well (Cohen & Norst, 1989;

Walker, 2015). Self-perception is strongly linked to the amount of

effort learners use to read in a foreign language (Bandura, 1989;

Walker, 2015). To enhance EFL readers’ self-perception, teachers

should support their students’ success in reading English by

guiding them in the selection of reading materials commensurate

with their interests and reading levels (Schunk, 1991). EFL teachers

should also vary tasks and assignments, provide the students with

effective reading strategies through modeling, demonstration and

guided practices (Schunk, & Zimmerman, 1997), and revise

grouping techniques which encourage cooperative learning (Henk &

Melnick, 1992, 1995; Henk, Marinak, & Melnick, 2012; Schunk, &

Zimmerman, 1997). Experiencing success consequently raises

learners’ positive self-perception (Bandura, 1981, 1989; Schunk,

1984, 1991; Schunk, & Zimmerman, 1997). When students are

able to handle reading tasks, the reading event will be less stressful

and the students are more likely to experience success (Henk &

Melnick, 1995; Scott, 1996). In contrast, encountering failure lowers

the learners’ self-perception (Bandura, 1981, 1989). When learners

believe that success is possible due to their own abilities, they will

attempt other endeavors on similar tasks (Weiner, 1972, 1979;

Weiner et al., 1971).

In order to help teachers best help EFL students to perceive

themselves as capable readers, they need reliable sources from

which to gain insights about how students perceive their reading

abilities. This information will better enable teachers to develop

instructional plans designed to improve students’ self-perception

and reading success.


To date, there is no suitable measure to determine reader

self-perception for EFL college readers. Existing self-perception

scales or self-esteem scales measure achievement globally rather

than reading achievement (Boersma et al., 1979). In addition, those

existing scales such as the one by Gambrell and her associates

(1996) address very few items concerning a specific measure of

reader self-perception. The Reader Self-Perception Scale (RSPS)

developed by Henk and Melnick (1995) and the Reader Self-

Perception Scale 2 (RSPS2) (2012) are intended to elicit information

from primary grade and secondary grade native readers respectively,

rather than EFL college readers. Due to the lack of an existing

measure appropriate for use with EFL readers, there is clearly a

need to develop an appropriate scale. The objectives of this study

were twofold: (1) to develop and field-test a scale to determine self-

perception for readers of English as a foreign language; and (2) to

study the relationships between EFL readers’ self-perception and

reading achievement.

METHOD

Research questions

Two substantive research questions were addressed in this

study as follows:

1. Does the Self-Perception Scale for Readers of English as a

Foreign Language (SPSREFL) represent Bandura’s self-

efficacy theory?

2. What is the relationship between self-perception and

reading achievement for EFL learners?

Participants

Six hundred and eighteen Thai college freshmen at a

university in Thailand participated in the study. The majority of the

participants were in the fields of science and technology. Males

constituted 25% and females 75% of the sample. Approximately 44

percent had 9-12 years of experience in learning English; 23.9% had

over 13 years; and 30.4 % had 5-8 years. The average Grade Point

Average (GPA) was 2.14 (SD = .61): 40.9% fell within a range of 0.29


- 2.00; 53.6% in a range of 2.03 - 3.00; and less than 5% in a range

of 3.03 - 4.00. The Nelson-Denny Reading Test was administered to

survey the participants’ English reading ability. The results revealed

that their grade equivalent scores on the reading test ranged from

4.1 to 6.8 (mean = 4.1, SD = 0.12). Their standardized scores ranged

from 129 to 169 (mean = 139.8, SD = 4.78). It can be concluded

that the participants’ English ability is not adequate enough to

make use of English resources at the college level. At the time of the

study, these participants enrolled in English I, an EFL course

designed specifically for students having background in the science

fields.

Instruments

Nelson-Denny Reading Test (Form G)

The Nelson-Denny Reading test was used to survey students’

reading ability in reading English. According to Sweetland and

Keyser (1986), the Nelson-Denny Reading Test is used to measure

participants' achievement and progress in reading comprehension,

vocabulary development and reading rate for students in grade 9

and above. The range of reliabilities for the comprehension subtest

was 0.75 - 0.82; and 0.89 - 0.95 for the vocabulary subtest. For the

reading rate subtest, the reliabilities range from 0.62 - 0.82

(Hambleton, 1985).

Student Information Questionnaire

The Student Information Questionnaire was developed to

gather information about the participants’ gender, experience in

learning English as a foreign language, experience in English

speaking countries, their pleasure reading, academic reading and

their accumulative Grade Point Average (GPA).

Questionnaire Development and Administration

The construction of the Self-Perception Scale for Readers of

English as a Foreign Language (SPSREFL) followed the guidelines

and procedures described in Henk and Melnick’s study (1992).

Those steps are: (1) defining theoretical constructs; (2) selecting a


scaling technique; (3) validating both construct validity and content

validity of items; (4) preparing drafts of the scale and gathering data;

and (5) analyzing the data (using statistical techniques).

The preliminary item pool of 40 items was generated based

on Bandura’s theory of perceived self-efficacy (1977a, 1981, 1995).

Some of the items were adapted from Henk and Melnick’s Reader

Self-Perception Scale (1995). The items of the SPSREFL were

designed to elicit information about EFL students’ self-perceived

competence in reading English texts. The items were used to assess

four specific dimensions of reader self-perception corresponding to

the four dimensions of self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977a, 1981,

1995). The first dimension is Progress (PR) which refers to how the

students perceive their present reading performance compared with

their past performance. The second source, Observational

Comparison (OC), refers to how the students perceive their reading

performance in relation to their peers’ reading performance. The

third source, Social Feedback (SF), refers to direct or indirect

reactions about their reading ability perceived from their teachers

and peers. The final source, Physiological States (PS), includes their

body symptoms and their internal feelings occurred before, during

or after reading.

In addition, notions of grammatical knowledge (Sinatra &

Dowd, 1991; Geva, 1992; Tzung-yu, 1993; Wilkinson & Patty,

1993), reading speed, vocabulary and meaning, comprehension

strategies and metacognitive knowledge (Paris, Lipson & Wixson,

1983; Grant, 1993, 1994; Rinehart, Stahl & Erickson, 1986; Carrell,

Pharis & Liberto, 1989) were taken into account when the SPSREFL

was developed.

The preliminary pool of items was tested in two levels in order

to validate the measure.

The first level of validation: The preliminary pool of 40

items was reviewed by 4 professors in the field of reading education,

3 professors in TESOL (Teaching of English to Speakers of Other

Languages), 1 professor having expertise in the theory of self-

perception and 2 doctoral students in reading education. These

experts were asked to critique items from their areas of expertise.


Using a five point Likert Scale (5=Strongly Agree, 4=Agree,

3=Undecided, 2=Disagree, and 1=Strongly Disagree), those experts

judged the degree to which each item captured its theoretical

constructs (OC, SF, PR, or PS).

Following data collection, each item was analyzed for its

goodness of fit within the intended constructs. For an item to be

retained, it was rated by the experts as to whether it belonged to the

expected construct, and the confidence level for the item needed to

meet or exceed 3.5 (on a scale of 1 to 5). Any items not meeting the

criteria were revised based on the experts’ comments.

The second level of validation: The second level of

validation followed the procedure used by Henk and Melnick (1992,

2009, 2012). Ten graduate students in reading education and

eleven graduate students in TESOL were asked to sort the 40 items

into one of four possible categories: Progress (PR), Observational

Comparison (OC), Social Feedback (SF), and Physiological States

(PS). Those choices which corresponded to the four dimensions of

self-perception theory included: (1) I can read and comprehend

English text now (PR); (2) I read better than my classmates (OC); (3)

My classmates or my teachers think I am a good reader (SF); and (4)

I feel nervous when I am reading an English text (PS). Those 4

categories were provided for each item. In addition, those graduate

students also were asked to rate how strongly they felt each item

belonged to the category they had chosen by using a 5-point scale

(5=Strongly Agree, 4=Agree, 3=Undecided, 2=Disagree, and 1=

Strongly disagree).

Each item was analyzed for its goodness of fit within the

intended category. At the second level of validation, an item was

retained when the interrater agreement level reached 70%, and the

confidence level for each item met or exceeded 2.5.

The final version of the SPSREFL consisted of 36 items: (1) 9

items capturing the observational comparison aspect; (2) 7 items

measuring the social feedback aspect; (3) 12 items measuring the

progress aspect; (4) 7 items measuring the physiological states; and

(5) 1 item measuring the overall self-perception (See Appendix A).


Due to the overall low performance of the participants on the

Nelson-Denny Reading Test (mean = 139.81, SD = 4.78), the

SPSREFL was translated into their native language. The translated

version was subsequently reviewed by a Thai professional translator

to check the accuracy and clarity. The content of the SPSREFL in

the English language is consistent with that in Thai.

The participants were given the Nelson-Denny Reading test to

survey their reading ability in English and also were asked to fill out

the Student Information Questionnaire. Previously, the homeroom

EFL teachers translated the Student Information Questionnaire into

Thai in order to facilitate the participants’ completion of the

questionnaire. Then, they were asked to complete the Thai version

of the SPSREFL. The students were told to read each statement on

the SPSREFL carefully and to check the letter (e.g. SA for strongly

agree, A for agree, U for undecided, D for disagree and SD for

strongly disagree) that showed how much they agreed or disagreed

with the statement. They were encouraged to ask questions about

any aspect of the scale they did not understand and were also

informed that the results obtained from the scale would not affect

their academic record and that their privacy would be protected.

FINDINGS

The SPSREFL Scale and Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory

To develop and field-test a self-perception scale for EFL

readers, analyses of the 35 items on the SPSREFL scale were

performed. The SPSREFL scale was developed to tap 4 theoretical

constructs: Progress, Observational Comparison, Social Feedback,

and Physiological States. Because some items (Items 14, 23, and

28) on the revised version of the SPSREFL convey negative words

(e.g. worried, tired and nervous), those items were reverse-coded. In

other words, those items containing the negative words were coded

as follows: 1 = Strongly Agree, 2 = Agree, 3 = Undecided, 4 =

Disagree, and 5 = Strongly disagree.

Exploratory factor analyses were performed to determine the

dimensionality of self-perception for EFL readers (Kline, 1994).

These analyses also provided an empirical basis for reducing the


many variables to a few factors by combining variables that are

moderately or highly correlated with each other (Coakes, Steed, &

Ong, 2009). A principal component factor analysis with varimax

rotation was undertaken for the thirty-five items. After extraction,

the researcher had to decide how many factors to retain for rotation.

Field (2000) suggested that the number of factors retained depends

on the number of factors with the eigenvalues greater than one in

the analysis (Guttman-Kaiser’s criterion). Therefore, the fact that

four eigenvalues were greater than one suggests a four-factor

solution.

Table 1: Factor Loadings by Scale–Observational Comparison

Factor 1: Observational

Comparison (OC)

Factor

Loadings

Eigenvalue Cronbach’s

Alpha

1. I can read English faster

than my classmates.

.576

5.91

.90

4. When I read an English text,

I can understand it better

than my classmates.

.637

7. I seem to know more English

vocabulary than my

classmates.

.514

12. I am better at applying

grammatical knowledge to

help me understand what I

am reading than my

classmates.

.565

17. I seem to be better than my

classmates at drawing

conclusions from what I am

reading.

.580

20. I read more English

materials than my

classmates.

.482

25. When I read, I can identify

the author’s purpose (i.e. to

give information, to persuade

or to entertain) better than

my classmates.

.452


31. I can understand the main

ideas of what I am reading

better than my classmates.

.663

Table 2: Factor Loadings by Scale-Social Feedback

Factor 2: Social Feedback (SF) Factor

Loadings


Alpha

2. My classmates think I

read English materials

well most of the time.

.716

3.636 .84

8. My English teacher thinks

I am a good reader.

.721

11. My classmates tend to

expect me to get a good

grade on my reading

assignment or reading

test.

.695

16. My classmates think I am

a good reader of English.

.825

24. My classmates like to

listen to me talk about

what I have read from

English texts.

.576

27. I often get good comments

on my reading

assignments from

teachers.

.696

32. My English teachers think

my reading is fine.

.790


Table 3: Factor Loadings by Scale–Progress

Factor 3: Progress (PR) Factor

Loadings


Alpha

3. I can apply grammatical

knowledge of English to

help me understand what

I read better than I could

before.

.672

3.382 .91

13. I can figure out meanings

of unknown words better

than I could before.

.765

15. When I read an English

text now, I don’t have to

try as hard as I used to.

.679

18. When I read, I need less

help than I used to.

.720

19. I am getting better at

reading English.

.806

21. When I fail to understand

what I am reading, I now

know what I should do to

help me to understand

better.

.511

22. Reading English is easier

for me now than it

used to be.

.776

26. I can read English

materials faster than I

could before.

.796

29. I can tell when I do or do

not understand what I

am reading now better

than I used to.

.690

30. I can now apply reading

strategies (e.g. using

headings, reviewing a

summary section,

making use of charts and

graphs to answer my

.589


questions, making

predictions, summarizing,

etc.) to help me

understand what I am

reading.

33. I read English materials

better now than I could

before.

.787

35. Reading English

materials is not so

difficult for me now.

.720

Table 4: Factor Loadings by Scale–Physiological States

Factor 4: Physiological States

(PS)

Factor

Loadings


Alpha

5. I feel relaxed when I read

English materials.

.788

3.382 .84

6. I enjoy reading any

English materials (i.e.

novels or magazines).

.781

9. Reading an English

magazine or novel makes

me feel happy.

.841

10. I am comfortable when I

read English materials.

.787

23. I feel tired when I must

read English texts.

.663

28. Reading English

materials makes me

nervous.

.656

The theoretically derived items fit in with the proposed

construct. The one-factor solution was the most satisfactory and

the most desirable inasmuch as those items could be represented by

one proposed construct (Kline, 1994). Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 indicated

that the items in each table had the highest loadings on one factor,

as proposed. All of the items proposed loaded on a particular factor,

with factor loadings greater than .40 which many researchers such


as Wigfield and his colleagues (1995, 1996) used as a cutoff point in

making their decision to retain items. In addition, each analysis,

except the Physiological States, has only one eigenvalue greater than

one, confirming that one factor described the scale, as proposed.

Cronbach’s Alpha Internal Reliabilities

Internal consistency reliabilities provided an indicator of the

extent to which the items on each proposed dimension were

coherent (Check & Schutt, 2012). The Cronbach’s alpha of each

dimension-Observational Comparison, Social Feedback, Progress,

and Physiological States-was computed. Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4

showed the Cronbach’s alpha of .90, .84, .91 and .84, respectively.

These results indicated that the reliabilities of those scales are very

high and the items on those scales are strongly correlated.

Item-Total Correlation

Item-total correlations were performed for each proposed

dimension to assess the extent to which each item on a scale

correlates with the total score on that scale. The results showed

that the range of the item-total correlation on this scale is .53-.69,

suggesting that the items have moderate to strong positive

correlations with the total scores on the proposed scales.

Based on the factor analyses and the item-total correlations,

most of the items best define their own constructs. The reliabilities

of the scales are also very high.

Relationship Between EFL Readers’ Self-Perception and

Reading Achievement

To investigate the relationship between self-perception for

EFL readers and achievement, data from the SPSREFL scale were

correlated with the students’ achievement data.


Table 5: Relationship Between EFL Readers’ Self-Perception and their

Academic Achievement

Dimension of

Self-Perception

Grade of

English Subject

English Exam Reading Test

Observational

Comparison

.28** .24** .16**

Progress .26** .23** .14**

Physiological

States

.30** .28** .16**

Social Feedback .32** .29** .23**

General

Perception

.20** .17** .11*

* p < .05; ** p < .01

An examination of the Pearson product-moment coefficients

in Table 5 yields the correlations of the various Self-Perception

Scales to the number of achievement variables. The self-perception

scales have positive and significant correlations with other

achievement variables such as the students’ grades on the EFL

course, their final exam scores on the EFL course and their reading

achievement scores derived from the Nelson-Denny Reading Test.

Those correlations range in size from .11 to .32.

Table 6: Regression of Students’ Achievement Variables on the

SPSREFL Scales

Academic

Achievements

Predictor Beta Weights R square Adjusted R sq.

Grade of English OC

PR

PS

SF

GE

.091

.018

.179

.227

-.087

.141*

.132*

English Exam OC

PR

PS

SF

GE

.066

.014

.186

.211

-.097

.116*

.107*


Reading Test OC

PR

PS

SF

GE

.061

-.009

.076

.199

-.065

.060*

.050*

* p < .05

For further assessment, the relationship between Self-

Perception for EFL readers to students’ achievement and foreign

language reading achievement were investigated by regressing

achievements on the self-perception for EFL readers. The predictor

variables (Progress, Observational Comparison, Social Feedback,

Physiological States and General Perception) were entered into the

regression equation for each criterion variable (Grade of the EFL

course, Final exam scores, and the reading test scores). The results

of the regression analyses are presented in Table 6. The self-

perception scales accounted for between 6% and 14% of the

variance in the students’ achievement: 6% of the variance in the

Nelson-Denny Reading Test scores; 12% in the final exam scores of

the EFL course; and 14% in the grade of the EFL course. The self-

perception scales especially the Physiological States, the Social

Feedback and the General Perception are good predictors of student

achievements. The Physiological States scale and the Social

Feedback scale positively predicted the students’ achievement,

indicating that students with higher scores on the self-perception

scales had higher grades on the EFL course, higher scores on the

final exam of the EFL course and on the reading test.

General Perception negatively predicted the students’

achievements, indicating that those EFL students with higher scores

on the General Perception scale tended to have lower grades and

lower scores on the EFL course and lower scores on the reading test.

In considering the beta weights across the achievements, the Social

Feedback scale was the strongest predictor for nearly all of the

achievements. The Progress scale, as opposed to the Social

Feedback, was the weakest predictor for all achievements.


DISCUSSION

Bandura (1977a, 1981, 1995) defined four underlying

theoretical constructs of self-perception: performance achievement,

vicarious experiences, persuasion and bodily symptoms. Bandura

(1977a, 1981, 1995), Schunk (1991) and Walker (2015) also

revealed the impact of self-perception on academic achievement

including reading in a second or foreign language. This study not

only confirms those theoretical constructs for self-perception but

also extends the information to how those self-perception scales

relate to EFL readers’ academic achievement and foreign language

reading achievement. The following sections discuss the findings

organized around the two research questions.

EFL Readers’ Self-Perception and Bandura’s Self-Efficacy

Theory

Findings from this study reveal four constructs of self-

perception for reading English as a foreign language. The findings

are consistent with the underlying constructs proposed by Bandura

(1977a, 1981, 1995) as well. The Self-Perception Scale for Readers

of English as a Foreign Language (SPSREFL) developed in this study

satisfies a number of validation criteria and shows good internal

consistency reliabilities. A variety of analyses suggest that the

SPSREFL scale is a valid and reliable measure, and that the

different dimensions of self-perception for reading a foreign language

can be measured reliably using the scale. Such analyses as

Cronbach’s internal reliabilities and item-total correlations indicate

that all items on each proposed dimension are coherent. The

analyses also show that all the items do load on the proposed scale.

Nonetheless, based on the factor analyses and the reliability

analyses of the separate sets of items, it might be more meaningful

to treat the different dimensions as separate. Individual scales

provide different aspects of information about EFL readers’ self-

perception. As proposed earlier, the intention here is to use the

SPSREFL scale as a diagnostic measure, so the information

obtained from each scale will help EFL adjust their instruction

methods to best fit EFL students’ needs.


Relationship Between EFL Readers’ Self-Perception and

Achievement and EFL Reading Achievement

As proposed by many researchers (Alvermann & Guthrie,

1993; Barkley, 2006; Bottomley, Henk, & Melnick, 1997/1998;

Henk, Marinak, & Melnick, 2012/2013; Pajares & Valiante, 1997;

Retelsdorf, Kӧller, Mӧller, 2014; Scott, 1996; Shell, Colvin, &

Bruning, 1995), self-perception impacts on students’ academic

achievement and reading achievement. The relations of readers’

self-perception to academic achievement were an issue to be

investigated in this study. The correlational analyses displayed

positive correlations which were in the low range. Those correlations

included all of the scales-Observational Comparison, Progress,

Physiological States, Social Feedback and General Perception, and

achievements such as students’ grade on the EFL course, their

achievement in reading and writing English as shown on their final

exam and their reading achievement as shown on the Nelson-Denny

Reading Test scores. The correlations appeared to approach

statistical significance. The nonsignificant and low relation between

the self-perception scales and the Nelson-Denny Reading Test scores

can be explained. In the case of the low correlation between the

scales and the reading achievement on the Nelson-Denny Reading

Test scores, it is likely that this reading test was not adequately

sensitive to measure these EFL students. The test itself also has

constraints on measuring readers’ higher-order thinking skills

because of its format (Frederiksen, 1984; Stiggins & Conklin, 1992).

The format of multiple-choice questions could not measure higher-

order skills of EFL readers such as their uses of reading strategies to

solve reading problems, their analytic thinking and their ability to

organize relevant information (Stiggins & Conklin, 1992).

In addition, it is very likely that this group of students had

limited command of the English language. Thus, they could not

perform well on the reading test. This could possibly affect the

correlation coefficient between the reading scores and the self-

perception scores.

These conditions could possibly account for the low

relationship between the scales and the reading achievement.


However, the significant correlation coefficients between the

SPSREFL scales and the students’ grades on the EFL course and

between the scales and their final exam scores reveal a relationship

between the EFL readers’ self-perception and their academic

achievements.

The results demonstrated that the SPSREFL scales are

significant predictors of EFL students’ English grades, their final

exam scores and their reading achievement test scores. If considered

across the achievement variables, the Physiological States scale and

the Social Feedback scale are the most consistent positive

predictors. The most consistent negative predictor was the General

Perception scale.

These results provide interesting information about the scales

which need to be further examined. One of the most consistent

negative predictors was the General Perception scale. The negative

relations between the General Perception scale and the achievement

variables indicate that EFL students who scored higher on this scale

tended to score lower on the achievement measures. This finding

was very surprising. It was expected that the relations of the scale to

the achievement variables would be positive. It is possible that such

a factor as students’ linguistic ability in the target language comes

into play. This particular group of students appeared to have

inadequate command of the English language. This could cause

them to misinterpret information from their reading even though

they may possess relatively high self-perception. Another surprising

finding is that the Social Feedback scale appeared to have the

highest predictability of the EFL students’ achievements. According

to Bandura (1977a, 1995) and Shunk (1991), performance-based

information typically has a stronger effect on self-efficacy than other

information such as that acquired vicariously and that acquired

from persuasory sources. Thus, the Progress scale should have had

higher predictability than the other scales, according to Bandura

(1977a, 1995), but this was not the case. It might be the case that

their strong sense of efficacy in performing foreign language reading

has not been developed. Their failure in reading English may have

considerable impact upon their judgement and may lead them to


believe that their own performance offers the least reliable guide for

assessing their efficacy (Shunk, 1991). If so, those students would

have been more likely to base their judgement on information

acquired from their teachers or peers, instead. Furthermore, the

findings obtained from the regression analyses corroborated the

earlier finding that the SPSREFL scale is a reliable predictor of the

students’ achievement.

It is important to address the limitation of the study. This

study was conducted with a somewhat unique sample of EFL

students who possessed a limited command of English. The

participants of the study were not fully representative of EFL

readers. The sample of the study did not include EFL students with

different English proficiencies. Since the self-perception scale is

meant to be used for gathering information about an individual’s

perception of competence in reading a foreign language task, the

information will help teachers best design instruction and provide

EFL students with appropriate reading materials, accordingly.

Then, the sample of this study is the main target which the

SPSREFL is meant for. Besides, the sample of the study was large.

These could outweigh the limitation.

In conclusion, the Self-Perception Scale for Readers of

English as a Foreign Language represents well the four theoretical

constructs of Bandura’s self-efficacy theory (1977a, 1981, 1995).

The SPSREFL scale is also a reliable measure. Those constructs do

relate to students’ achievement in learning to read a foreign

language.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank all of the participants in this

study for their cooperation. Appreciation is also extended to Mr.

John Orr and Mr. Daniel Richardson for proofreading this

manuscript, and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive

comments on the earlier draft of this manuscript.


The Author

Dumrong Adunyarittigun is an associate professor in the

English Department, Thammasat University in Thailand. He

earned a Ph.D. in reading education from the University of

Maryland College Park in the U.S. His research interests include

comprehension, self-perception and motivation to read, language

assessment and critical literacy to promote peace.

References

Alvermann, D. E. & Guthrie, J. T. (1993). Themes and directions of

the National Reading Research Center. (Perspectives in

Reading Research, No.1). Athens, GA: National Reading

Research Center, University of Georgia.

Bandura, A. (1977a). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of

behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.

Bandura, A. (1977b). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1981). Self-referent thought: A developmental analysis

of self-efficacy. In J. Flavell & L. Ross (Eds.), Social cognitive

development: Frontiers and possible futures (pp.200-239).

Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social

cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through

perceived self-efficacy. Developmental Psychology, 25(5), 729-

735.

Bandura, A. (1995). Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Bandura, A. & Schunk, D. H. (1981). Cultivating competence, self-

efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-

motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

41(3), 586-598.

Barnett, M. A. (1986). Syntactic and lexical/semantic skill in foreign

language reading: Importance and interaction. The Modern

Language Journal, 70, 343-348.


Barkley, J. M. (2006). Reading education: Is self-efficacy important?

Reading improvement. International Journal of Special Education,

2(2), 121-132.

Beavers, A. S., Lounsbury, J. W., Richards, J. K., Huck, S. W.,

Skolits, G. J., & Esquivel, S. L. (2013). Practical considerations

for using exploratory factor analysis in educational research.

Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 18 (6), 1-13.

Boersma, F. J., Chapman, J. W. & MacGuire, T. O. (1979). The

student perception of ability scale: An instrument for

measuring academic self-concept in elementary school

children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 39(4),

1035-1041.

Bottomley, D. M., Henk, W. A., & Melnick, S. A. (1997/1998).

Assessing children’s views about themselves as writers using

the Writer Self-Perception Scales. The Reading Teacher, 51(4),

286-296.

Carrell, P. L., Pharis, B. G., & Liberto, J. C. (1989). Metacognitive

strategy training for ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 23(4),

647-678.

Castle, M. (1994). Promoting the disabled reader's self-esteem.

Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning

Difficulties, 10(2), 159-170.

Check, J. & Schutt, R. K. (2012). Research methods in education.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Chiu, M. M., & Klassen, R. M. (2009). Calibration of reading self-

concept and reading achievement among 15-year-olds:

cultural differences in 34 countries. Learning and Individual

Differences, 19, 372-386. Doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.10.004.

Coakes, S. J., Steed, L., & Ong, C. (2009). SPSS: Analysis without

anguish: Version 16 for Windows. Milton Qld: John Wiley &

Sons Australia.

Cohen, Y. & Norst, M. J. (1989). Fear, dependence and loss of self-

esteem: Affective barriers in second language learning among

adults. RELC Journal, 20(2), 61-77.

Deeds, B. (1981). Motivating children to read through improved self-

concept. In A. J. Ciani


Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows.

Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE

Frederiksen, N. (1984). The real test bias: Influences of testing on

teaching and learning. American Psychologist, 39, 193-202.

Gambrell, L. B., Palmer, B. M., Codling, R. M. & Mazzoni, S. A.

(1996). Assessing motivation to read. The Reading Teacher,

49(7), 518-533.

Geva, E. (1992). The role of conjunctions in L2 text comprehension.

TESOL Quarterly, 26, 731-747.

Goldenson, R. M. (1984). Longman dictionary of psychology and

psychiatry. NY: Longman.

Grant, R. (1993). Strategic training for using text headings to

improve students’ processing of content. Journal of Reading,

36(6), 482-488.

Grant, R. (1994). Comprehension strategy instruction: Basic

considerations for instructing at-risk college students.

Journal of Reading, 38(1), 42-48.

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in

reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R.

Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 403-424).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Hambleton, R. K. (1985). Nelson-Denny Reading Test, form E and F.

In D. J. Keyser & R. C. Sweetland (Eds.), Test critiques (Vol. 3

pp.475-479). Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of America.

Henk , W. A., Marinak, B. A., & Melnick, S. A. (2012). Measuring the

reader self-perceptions of adolescents: Introducing the

RSPS2. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(4), 311-

320.

Henk, W. A. & Melnick, S. A. (1992). The initial development of a

scale to measure "perception of self as a reader." In C. K.

Kinzer & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Literacy research, theory, and

practice: Views from many perspectives 41st Yearbook of the

National Reading Conference (pp.111-117). Chicago, IL:

National Reading Conference.

Henk, W. A. & Melnick, S. A. (1995). The Reader Self-Perception

Scale (RSPS): A new tool for measuring how children feel


about themselves as readers. The Reading Teacher, 48(6),

470-482.

Johnston, P. H. & Winograd, P. N. (1985). Passive failure in reading.

Journal of Reading Behavior, 17(4), 279-301.

Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. New York, NY:

Routledge.

Morgan, P. L., & Fuchs, D. (2007). Is there a bidirectional

relationship between children’s reading skills and reading

motivation? Exceptional Children, 73, 165-183.

Pajares, F., & Valiante, G. (1997). Influence of self-efficacy on

elementary students’ writing. The Journal of Educational

Research, 90(6), 353-360.

Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1983). Becoming a

strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3),

293-316.

Retelsdorf, J., Kӧller, Ol, & Mӧller, J. (2014). Reading achievement

and reading self-concept—Testing the reciprocal effects

model. Learning and Instruction, 29, 21-30. .

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.004.

Retelsdorf, J., Kӧller, Ol, & Mӧller, J. (2011). On the effects of

motivation on reading performance growth in secondary

school. Learning and Instruction, 21, 550-559.

doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2010.11.001

Rinehart, S. D., Stahl, S. A., & Erickson, L. G. (1986). Some effects

of summarization training on reading and studying. Reading

Research Quarterly, 21(4), 422-438.

Ruble, D. (1983). The development of social comparison processes

and their role in achievement-related self-socialization. In E.

T. Higgins, D. N. Ruble & W. W. Hartup (Eds.), Social

cognition and social development: A socio-cultural perspective

(pp.134-157). NY: Cambridge University Press.

Schunk, D. H. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation.

Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 207-231.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Developing self-

efficacious readers and writers: the role of social and self-

regulatory processes. In J. T. Guthrie, & A. Wigfield (Eds.),


Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated

instruction (pp. 34-50). Newark, DE: International Reading

Association.

Scott, J. E. (1996). Self-efficacy: A key to literacy learning. Reading

Horizons, 36(3), 195-213.

Sinatra, R., & Dowd, C. A. (1991). Using syntactic and semantic

clues to learn vocabulary. Journal of Reading, 35, 224-229.

Stiggins, R. J., & Conklin, N. F. (1992). In teachers’ hands. Albany,

NY: State University of New York Press.

Sweetland, R. C. & Keyser, D. J. (1986). Tests: A comprehensive

reference for assessments in psychology, education, and

business (2nd ed.). Kansas City, MO: Test Corporation of

America.

Tzung-yu, C. (1993). The syntactical problems Chinese college

students meet in reading English technical textbook. (Report

No. FL 021 668). IN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service

No. ED 364 094)

Vacca, R. T. & Padak, N. D. (1990). Who’s at risk in reading.

Journal of Reading, 33(7), 486-488.

Vacca, R. T.,Vacca, J. A. L., & Mraz, M. E. (2013). Content area

reading: Literacy and learning across the curriculum (11th ed.).

Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Walker, C. (2015). A study of self-concept in reading in a second or

foreign language in an academic context. System, 49, 73-85.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.01.001.

Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution theory, achievement motivation, and

the educational process. Review of Educational Research, 42,

203-215.

Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom

experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 3-25.

Weiner, B., Frieze, I., Kukla, A., Reed, L., Rest, S. & Rosenbaum, R.

(1971). Perceiving the causes of success and failure. NY:

General Learning Press.

Wigfield, A, & Guthrie, J. T. (1995). Dimensions of children’s

motivations for reading: An initial study. (Reading Research


Report No. 34). Athens, GA: National Reading Research

Center, University of Georgia.

Wigfield, A. & Karpathian, M. (1991). Who am I and what can I do?

Children's self-concepts and motivation in achievement

situations. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 233-261.

Wigfield, A., Wilde, K., Baker, L., Fernandez-Fein, S., & Scher, D.

(1996). The nature of children’s motivations for reading, and

their relations to reading frequency and reading performance.

(Reading Research Report No. 63). Athens, GA: National

Reading Research Center,

Wilkinson, P. A., & Patty, D. (1993). The effect of sentence

combining on the reading comprehension of fourth grade

students. Research in the Teaching of English, 27, 104-125.


Appendix A

The Self-Perception Scale for Readers of English

as a Foreign Language

________________________________________________________________________

Listed below are statements about reading English as a foreign language.

Please read each statement carefully. Then check the letter that shows

how much you agree or disagree with the statement. Use the following:

SA = Strongly Agree

A = Agree

U = Undecided

D = Disagree

SD = Strongly Disagree

Statements SA A U D SD

OC 1 I can read English faster than my

classmates.

SF 2 My classmates think I read English

materials well most of the time.

PR 3 I can apply grammatical knowledge of

English to help me understand what I

read better than I could before.

OC 4 When I read an English text, I can

understand it better than my classmates.

PS 5 I feel relaxed when I read English

materials.

PS 6 I enjoy reading any English materials (i.e.

novels or magazines).

OC 7 I seem to know more English vocabulary

than my classmates.

SF 8 My English teacher thinks I am a good

reader.

PS 9 Reading an English magazine or novel

makes me feel happy.

PS 10 I am comfortable when I read English

materials.

SF 11 My classmates tend to expect me to get a

good grade on my reading assignment or

reading test.



OC 12 I am better at applying grammatical

knowledge to help me understand what I

am reading than my classmates.

PR 13 I can figure out meanings of unknown

words better than I could before.

PS *14 I am worried about what my classmates

think about my reading when I read

English texts.

PR 15 When I read an English text now, I don’t

have to try as hard as I used to.

SF 16 My classmates think I am a good reader

of English.

OC 17 I seem to be better than my classmates

at drawing conclusions from what I am

reading.

PR 18 When I read, I need less help than I used

to.

PR 19 I am getting better at reading English.

OC 20 I read more English materials than my

classmates.

PR 21 When I fail to understand what I am

reading, I now know what I should do to

help me to understand better.

PR 22 Reading English is easier for me now

than it used to be.

PS 23 I feel tired when I must read English

texts.

SF 24 My classmates like to listen to me talk in

Thai about what I have read from

English texts.

OC 25 When I read, I can identify the author’s

purpose (i.e. to give information, to

persuade or to entertain) better than my

classmates.

PR 26 I can read English materials faster than I

could before.

SF 27 I often get good comments on my reading

assignments from teachers.

PS 28 Reading English materials makes me

nervous.



PR 29 I can tell when I do or do not understand

what I am reading now better than I used

to.

PR 30 I can now apply reading strategies (e.g.

using headings, reviewing a summary

section, making use of charts and graphs

to answer my questions, making

predictions, summarizing, etc.) to help

me understand what I am reading.

OC 31 I can understand the main ideas of what

I am reading better than my classmates.

SF 32 My English teachers think my reading is

fine.

PR 33 I read English materials better now than

I could before.

OC 34 I learn from reading English texts more

than my classmates do.

PR 35 Reading English materials is not so

difficult for me now.

GE 36 I think I am a good reader of English

materials.

Note. Items with an asterisk were deleted in the revised version of the

SPSREFL

Documents

Developing a Scale to Measure Reader Self- Perception for ... · Developing a Scale to Measure Reader Self-Perception for EFL Students ... reading and writing in English are correlated